The second question, and the topic of the thread, regards the correct use of the term “religious”. There’s no doubt the PLaClair is right in terms of the technical meaning of the term, but in my view it is still confusing to use the term “religious” to describe Humanist beliefs. This is not to denigrate the strong tradition of Humanists and Humanist organizations that do use the term in such a way, but simply to recognize the reality that there are serious political and public dangers were we to use the term in a more widespread way. There is no doubt that the term “religious”, in the public consciousness, refers to theistic belief systems, and this is as true in my home the UK as in the USA. I think it highly unlikely we will be able to shift the meaning of this term, and I do not see what benefit there is to attempt to do so for the movement as a whole. I understand that individual Humanists who use the term “religion” to describe their beliefs and practices would be more comfortable if the term had a more amenable general use. But I don’t see how the cause of Humanism would be furthered by trying to shift the use of the term back to a broader meaning.

James, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this issue but strongly disagree with your conclusions. Maybe each of us has something to offer to the other for further consideration.

First, what “serious political and public dangers” do you foresee if Humanists say that Humanism is a religion? Ethical Culture has done this, and I see no disadvantage to it. On the contrary, status as a religious organization has tax benefits. So you can say but what is the basis for the statement? Could you flesh out your concern?

I’ll quibble a bit with the framing of the issue as “the correct use of the term ‘religious’” and respectfully suggest that there is no single correct use. The problem we face, among others, is that we live in a culture that has increasingly allowed itself to be dumbed down. We could blame the media for this, general laziness among a population of people who came to think they were entitled to be on top of the world, American military dominance, especially after the collapse of Communism, and perhaps a variety of other factors. But whatever the reasons, the American people seem to have lost the liberal ethic that prevailed pretty much since the Great Depression until roughly the late 1970s - and I mean liberal in the classic sense.

Religion is not limited to theism, that is a fact as you acknowledge. You are correct, in my view, that pointing this out will be a frustrating battle but that does not mean that we should give up. On the contrary, the main frustration comes from the myopic view of the culture in which we now live. Our challenge is to shake that up where we can.

The main advantage that I see in waging this battle comes from my personal history. I grew up a Roman Catholic but had to struggle to remain within the church. Only when I stopped trying to fit that square peg into the round hole of my life did things begin to take shape in a more satisfying way. In every way, Humanism is my religion. I breathe it and live it every minute. It’s not just a collection of beliefs, not just a philosophy, not just a way of living; it is all of those things, and more. So I will fight this battle even if I am the only one, because that is how I see the relationship between Humanism and the very traditional religion in which I was raised. I can’t help think that if more of us saw it that way, we would be more unified and better able to present ourselves positively to the wider communities of which we are a part. Part of our job is to bring information in place of misinformation, knowledge in place of ignorance, etc. I see this as part of it. Religion isn’t just that one thing; in fact, most of the history of religion is a set of tragic diversions from the prime impetus of religion, which is to make sense of things and bring the parts of life together into a unified whole. We have a contribution to make, and I will not accept being pushed out of the arena.

Signature

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Hi PLaClair! It’s a pleasure to discuss this important topic with you.

what “serious political and public dangers” do you foresee if Humanists say that Humanism is a religion? Ethical Culture has done this, and I see no disadvantage to it. On the contrary, status as a religious organization has tax benefits. So you can say but what is the basis for the statement? Could you flesh out your concern?

I think that in a cultural environment in which battle lines have been drawn up between “religion” (conceived of as involving some sort of supernaturalism) and science and naturalistic philosophies, it is unwise to use the term which is most widely seen to refer to those ideas and practices we oppose to refer to us as well. This will cause confusion and dilute our message to no appreciable benefit. People will be able to make use of the argument “Humanism is just another religion”, implying that we too have unsupportable commitments and therefore do not have a qualitatively preferable worldview. Note that this has been the strategy of our enemies before, as you will know having read Lamont’s “Philosophy of Humanism”. Essentially, we will become victims of semantic slippage and become less able to articulate those elements of our philosophy which include commitments to naturalism, epistemic responsibility and falliblism.

I think taking tax benefits as a religious organization is potentially very dangerous, because many of us seek to end tax benefits for religious organizations. Clearly we can’t make that argument with integrity while taking the benefits.

As for the benefits you see in reclaiming the term, while I respect your personal journey I don’t see that it is wise to make decisions for the movement on the basis of personal testimony. The discussion here seems to me to be about more than your personal right to use the term “religion” to describe your life stance, which I do not question. Rather it is about whether it is fruitful as a movement to expend significant effort in attempting to change the mind of the public and have Humanism accepted and referred to as a religion. For the reasons I’ve mentioned I this will have negative consequences for us. But further, I think the advantages you outline are simply not worth the expenditure of resources it would take to affect the change.

Signature

TempleoftheFuture.net
A radical, activist Humanist vision for the 21st Century.

Wow, I have a lot of respect for Croft, his work, and his site. But ya know, Ingersoll could have been told that Temple has a set meaning as well. [A temple (from the Latin word templum) is a Roman structure reserved for religious or spiritual activities, such as prayer and sacrifice, or analogous rites ...]

Wow, I have a lot of respect for Croft, his work, and his site. But ya know, Ingersoll could have been told that Temple has a set meaning as well. [A temple (from the Latin word templum) is a Roman structure reserved for religious or spiritual activities, such as prayer and sacrifice, or analogous rites ...]

Hey traveler - delighted you like the site! You make an excellent point - where do I get the right to reject the use of the term “religion” when I go around using words like “Temple”? I address the broad question of the reclamation of religious terminology in the site’s FAQ, and I basically suggest that it’s a complex issue and should be approached on a term-by-term basis. So I don’t use “religion” and “faith”, but I’m happier with things like “temple” and “soul” (meant metaphorically). But you’re right - these are tough lines to draw.

Of course, no one’s personal story alone sets the goals of an organization. However, my experience is hardly unique. I approach this as someone who grew up in a traditional religion and migrated away from it to Humanism. For those of us who spent our formative years in a traditional religion, a sizeable chunk of the population to say the least, that framework lasts for a lifetime. Indeed, I would not be without it, and if you look at the lives of most productive people I think you’ll see the same thing: people need a sense of orientation, which is what religion provides.

This is especially important because of one of the main popular critiques against various manifestations of non-theism: the claim that we are unrooted in anything. That is a formula for certain failure, a point on which we seem to agree.

Of course, we could argue, as Humpty-Dumpty did, about which is master, or debate which is the tail and which is the dog. After all, we are arguing about the use of a word, a matter of judgment if ever there was one! I resolve the issue by recognizing that when people hear a word like “religion,” a mental picture immediately comes to mind. That picture is present whether we use the word or not, and will remain exactly as it is if we decline to use it. We have no chance to change the mental image if we do not try; so the question is whether the word is worth the fight. I think it is: religion is too important in our social milieu to cede it to our adversaries. If we make the point that religion is broader than theism, we are walking into a sweet spot: many people already believe that. Furthermore, we minimize the extent of the fight we have to have: instead of taking on all of religion, we can take on our real adversary, which is unsubstantiated belief. We can do that anyway but there is no reason to alienate people who think of themselves as “spiritual but not religious” or “religious but not dogmatic.”

I respectfully suggest that the confusion is already present, a product of millennia of conflating religion with theism. We Humanists seek, inter alia, to change minds and attitudes. Confusing the existing confusion with an attempt to straighten out the confusion is itself confusing - if that isn’t too confusing to follow. The point is that we face an uphill battle; I think you’re confusing the inherent difficulty of the battle with the attempt to engage in the fight.

I am enjoying this discussion and hope we can continue it. We see things differently, not at all a bad thing. Maybe we can find some common ground.

Signature

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

I too am enjoying this. I think my central point still stands: this is a question of choosing our battles. Is it really worth it to wage a long and difficult campaign to reclaim the term “religion”, risking all the dangers I’ve outlined in doing so, simply to use a label which we do not need to achieve our goals?

I’d rather build the sort of communities you refer to, to provide the framework for orientation that we agree is valuable, but simply call them Humanist Communities or existential communities or something. Then instead of spending effort arguing with people whether we are a religion or not, we can do the more important work of building community spaces.

I also want to point out that even though the term “religion” can be used to mean much more than “theism”, it does generally refer to belief systems and practices with a supernatural component. Even the Ethical Society was initially committed to a form of ethical supernaturalism derived from Kant. So I don’t think the term is quite as amenable to secular use as one might imagine.

Finally, while we’re on the topic of Ethical Societies, I feel it may be worth considering whether the decline of Ethical Culture (we must surely be contemplating its complete extinction if the Boston Ethical Society is any indication) may be precisely because it has clung onto a set of terminologies that no longer resonates with the people who might otherwise join. This is just speculation, but I think it’s worth consideration.

I too am enjoying this. I think my central point still stands: this is a question of choosing our battles. Is it really worth it to wage a long and difficult campaign to reclaim the term “religion”, risking all the dangers I’ve outlined in doing so, simply to use a label which we do not need to achieve our goals?

I’d rather build the sort of communities you refer to . . .

I propose that the foregoing is a false choice and does not at all express what I have in mind. Presenting Humanism as my religion comes natural to me, so I scarcely even think about it. When the subject of religion comes up, I say what I feel and think, which is that I am more religious now than at any other time in my life; and that the reason for this is that through a naturalistic world view I no longer have to try to fit just-so stories into the framework of my life. You could say that reality is my religion. (See below.) It’s not a fight in that sense, but an invitation to a way of looking at things that I have found liberating.

I’ve been far too broad in this discussion. I agree that plenty of statements about religion would be confusing and destructive to Humanist purposes. But I maintain that other statements would be useful:

“Love is my religion.” [http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/z/ziggy_marley/love_is_my_religion.html ]
“Reality is my religion.” [http://peter-harrison.com/Home.html]
“Freedom is my religion.” [http://richarddawkins.net/videos/495286-freedom-is-my-religion]
“The capacity of the informed human mind . . . is my religion.” [http://books.google.com/books?id=TZH2nHEPSjYC&pg=PA375&lpg=PA375&dq;=“is+my+religion”+“is+my+temple”&source=bl&ots=rcfrC1cT6C&sig=aadO2YFUHI-P716trQHGFHErqyA&hl=en#v=onepage&q=“is my religion” “is my temple”&f=false ]
“My country is the world and to do good is my religion.” [http://www.inspirationpeak.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?search=ralph+waldo+emerson&page=1 ]

Each of these statements makes a point about what religion is, and is not, to the speaker/writer. These concise statements make it clear that for the speaker/writer, most distinctly, religion is not belief in a traditional concept of God. In fact, each of these statements is a direct challenge to such a world view. Each statement promotes an important secular value and invites the listener/reader to reconsider her point of view on the subject of religion. It seems to me that this is exactly what we Humanists should be doing if we hope to change minds and thereby change our culture. The mere fact that we may not succeed is no reason not to engage in the effort. On the contrary, the difficulty of the undertaking is a measure of the importance of shaking loose current assumptions.

None of these statements appears to be confusing. Each of them may create some cognitive dissonance in the listener/reader whose assumption that religion equals theism is so deeply ingrained that they cannot conceive of it any other way; but with them, where is the harm? I maintain that cognitive dissonance is exactly what we need to give them, because until we shake them loose from their assumptions, nothing we say on this subject will matter.

As for needing the label: the label is out there and is pervasive. Like it or not, religion is a powerful cultural force. So we have a choice. We can try to scrap the whole thing and essentially wage war against the entire enterprise; or we can recognize that there are many things about religion that are consistent with our aims. If you know a little about me, you know that I am not one to back down from a fight when it’s necessary; I don’t think that scrapping the whole of religion by refusing to be associated with it is necessary, or wise. So we have entirely different views about which strategy picks the unnecessary and unwinnable fight. I maintain that your strategy does.

Well if the ball’s now in my court it is a rather different court than the one in which we began! As I think you accept your argument is now much more limited, and I have much less disagreement with it as a consequence. The sorts of statements as the ones you link seem to me not really confusing or dangerous. And I am not arguing that we should never use the word “religion”. Rather I am questioning the wisdom of allowing Humanism itself to be called a “religion” and indeed of expending energy such that is is seen by a religion when, I think now, it is seen by most as something different. Since the battle lines in our culture have been drawn in such a way - religion versus science, reason versus faith - and since I see few concrete problems which flow from that, I say let’s go with that flow, be seen to be championing science and reason (which we are and should, after all), instead of fighting against it.

This is the nature of the real choice we face - either to move with the cultural currents or expend energy fighting against them for little appreciable benefit.

Signature

TempleoftheFuture.net
A radical, activist Humanist vision for the 21st Century.

You raised another example: Ethical Culture. Their position on the subject of religion, and their self-identification as a religion always seemed appropriate to me, very much along the lines of the statements I quoted. They’re not trying to force anyone in how to define religion; they are only expressing their vision. Could you spell out what you think the harm is beyond what you’ve already written?

I haven’t been to Boston Ethical but have been a member and president at Essex County in New Jersey. Nothing that I have seen suggests that their self-identification as a religion has caused their decline; they have identified that way since their inception, as far as I know.

Signature

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Could you spell out what you think the harm is beyond what you’ve already written?

Well I don’t see where you’ve responded to the harms I have already raised, but sure, here’s another particularly relevant to the Ethical Society. More are more people are disaffiliating from religion and rejecting the “religious” label - some 20% of the US population and more than 30% of young people do not identify as religious. I want real Humanist communities to flourish and grow, and I think much of our future growth will come from this nonreligious demographic. Therefore I think it highly unwise to use the label “religion” for such communities, with all the semantic challenges that will ensue, and risk alienating the very population we seek to recruit, who have turned away from that label quite consciously.

I haven’t been to Boston Ethical but have been a member and president at Essex County in New Jersey. Nothing that I have seen suggests that their self-identification as a religion has caused their decline; they have identified that way since their inception, as far as I know.

Indeed. And I imagine that, like almost every Ethical Society I have studied, their membership has aged and shrunk significantly since its high point. Perhaps they need to take a new tack? It may, on the other hand, be very successful - I’m willing to be swayed on this point. But I doubt it is as large and as powerful as the institutions I hope the movement will build in the next few decades.

But James, you acknowledged that we had a miscommunication about what I was proposing, so now that you understand what that is, what do you identify as the harm, if any?

You argued that we would be victims of semantic slippage; my response was that we won’t if we do it right, and I pointed out one way it could be done.

You argued that we would be lumped with other religions; my response was that we can clearly draw distinctions.

Finally, you argued that an attempt to eliminate tax exempt status for religious organizations would be undermined if we call ourselves a religion. But we will not have any power to bring about such a change unless we can gain more numbers and attract more funds. In any event, we can accept the benefit of any existing tax laws and also press to have the laws changed. We can disagree but I don’t see any significant harm.

Essentially, I want more than just a hunch or a suspicion that the use of the term “religion” or “religious” has something to do with EC’s ability to increase its numbers. I don’t think that’s the reason and don’t see any evidence that it is. Each of the Ethical Societies is different, and to my eye each of them has a limited appeal. Because there are only a few of them, their membership is geographically oriented.

By no means do I suggest that we will grow our numbers and our resources by pinning a new label on our jacket. Our success will be a function of how well we serve people. There is a market for what the churches do. We can tap into that if we do it right. Some people will like having it called a religion, or religious, some may dislike it and others probably won’t care. In fact, I don’t even care much that we formally call our organizations “religions” or “religious.” What does matter, however, is that we be open to those who take the view that it is religious. My-skin-crawls-at-that-word resistance to the term will be an impediment if it persists.

Signature

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

I must admit I’m becoming a bit confused here. You say “you acknowledged that we had a miscommunication about what I was proposing, so now that you understand what that is, what do you identify as the harm, if any?”

I’m not certain, with respect, that was what I acknowledged. Rather I accepted your later limitation of your claim. You said:

“I’ve been far too broad in this discussion. I agree that plenty of statements about religion would be confusing and destructive to Humanist purposes. But I maintain that other statements would be useful”

That seems to me a clear concession of the “too broad” nature of your earlier claim and a redefinition of the subject under discussion. My response was meant to be in the spirit of “now that you’ve moved the goalposts so substantially I don’t see the need to play”. My contention is that it is unwise to refer to Humanism itself as a “religion”. I have given clear reasons why. I have also suggested that though there may be ways to avoid the dangers I outline the expenditure of energy and resources it would take to do so is wasteful and that there’d be no significant benefit.

I want more than just a hunch or a suspicion that the use of the term “religion” or “religious” has something to do with EC’s ability to increase its numbers. I don’t think that’s the reason and don’t see any evidence that it is.

I have given one reason to believe this might be the case - that many people are identifying as non-religious. If this hurts congregations of other religious organizations I’m not sure why it shouldn’t hurt those of Ethical Culture Societies. But I admit the argument is necessarily speculative to a large degree - but it’s informed speculation.

In fact, I don’t even care much that we formally call our organizations “religions” or “religious.” What does matter, however, is that we be open to those who take the view that it is religious. My-skin-crawls-at-that-word resistance to the term will be an impediment if it persists.

It seems to me that here you concede the point I was seeking to make all along! And not only do I agree with the idea that we must be open to Humanists who see their Humanism as a religion, but I myself made the point in my initial reply. So what exactly are we discussing?

James, when I wrote that I had been too broad in the discussion, it was a reference to not dealing with cases. I didn’t change my position and would never suggest that the word fits everywhere. That doesn’t matter now. What matters, as you say, is what is best, which is what I propose to discuss.

Many people do self-identify as non-religious. However, many other people self-identify as religious. I do not believe that the best approach is categorically to avoid the word religion as a description of Humanism. To me, this suggests a personal investment against a popular and widely used word. The word may be anathema to many secularists but it has great appeal to other secularists and to the population at large. If we refuse to identify with it, we burn bridges; however wide or narrow those may be, that costs us. That, I suggest, is a more compelling argument than arguing that we shouldn’t use the word in any context because some people react to it.

That point leads to a longer argument and a more fundamental point. We cannot build Humanism by reacting. Avoiding a word is a negative reaction. It builds nothing and it often destroys plenty. Tragically, we have allowed this to characterize Humanism for many decades. Our small groups splinter into tiny groups because we self-identify as critics, which can rapidly turn into crankiness. No one, it seems, is satisfied with a commonly held position. It’s as anti-religious as you can get, so I can understand why some people who come here would be prone to doing it but it is fatal to our aims. The joke is that trying to get Humanists to agree on anything is like trying to herd cats - but the joke is on us and it’s not funny, not to mention that we do it to ourselves. We will continue to cut ourselves off at the ankles for as long as we continue to do this.

That is why we must get past the emotional reaction against the word “religion.” That is not to say that each of us must self-identify as religious. But each of us must understand and appreciate the value that religion has to many people who are firmly grounded in reason and scientific naturalism.

Signature

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Einstein’s statement “I am a deeply religious non-believer, this is a somewhat different kind of religion” seems to sum up the quandary.

IMO, the word religion has become synonymous with the belief in “intelligent direction” by an outside source. If science can prove that “intelligence” and “motive” is not a required attribute, then the goal posts are removed altogether. We need not be in competition to score points with the religious practice of one’s beliefs.
After all is said and done, there is a common quest for a “unifying principle” in the creation and evolution of the universe(s) by theists, deists, and scientists alike.
Take away the intelligent aspect in “religions” and the use of the word religion will regain its proper meaning.

After all is said and done, there is a common quest for a “unifying principle” in the creation and evolution of the universe(s) by theists, deists, and scientists alike.
Take away the intelligent aspect in “religions” and the use of the word religion will regain its proper meaning.

I agree. But if no one makes that case with energy, passion and commitment, it will never happen.

Signature

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.